Professional Documents
Culture Documents
v.
J. MCCARTY,
Defendant-Appellee,
G. MEADE; R. FLEMING; SERGEANT
HILLYER; SERGEANT WOOD; M.
HARRISON; D. P. KING;
CORRECTIONAL OFFICER JORDAN,
Defendants.
No. 03-6776
COUNSEL
Lamont O. Douglas, Appellant Pro Se. Mark Ralph Davis, OFFICE
OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.
DOUGLAS v. MCCARTY
OPINION
PER CURIAM:
Lamont O. Douglas, a state prisoner, appeals from the district
courts orders granting remittitur on the award of damages on defendant McCartys counterclaim and denying Douglass Fed. R. Civ. P.
Rule 59(a) motion for a new trial. This case arose out of an altercation
between Douglas and McCarty, a correctional officer, in which both
Douglas and McCarty sustained injuries. After independently reviewing the record, we affirm the district courts orders.
Douglas makes the following arguments: (1) the district court
abused its discretion by conferring jurisdiction over McCartys counterclaim; (2) the district court erred by dismissing the claims against
defendant Meade in his 42 U.S.C. 1983 (2000) action; (3) the magistrate judge erred by finding that Douglas had to prepay the applicable fees for non-inmate witnesses; (4) the magistrate judge erred by
failing to impose discovery sanctions or conduct a hearing thereon;
(5) the district court improperly awarded damages in excess of the
amount contained in the ad damnum clause of McCartys counterclaim; and (6) the district court abused its discretion by denying his
Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(a) motion for a new trial.
We find that Douglass argument that the district court did not
properly have jurisdiction over McCartys counterclaim is without
merit. In particular, we find that McCarty had standing to bring the
counterclaim. Douglas contends that the Virginia Attorney General
("AG"), which represented McCarty on the counterclaim, did not have
the authority to represent McCarty because he was not employed by
the Virginia Department of Corrections ("VDOC") at the time the
counterclaim was filed. We first note that the statute upon which
Douglas relies, Va. Code Ann. 2.1-121, was repealed effective
October 1, 2001. The state statutes regarding the function of the AGs
office are now found at 2.2-500 through 2.2-518. According to
DOUGLAS v. MCCARTY
DOUGLAS v. MCCARTY
DOUGLAS v. MCCARTY
DOUGLAS v. MCCARTY
ment that he should have been granted a new trial based on the defendants failure to produce McCartys medical records. First, as the
district court found, Douglas did not request such records during discovery. Moreover, the district court liberally construed this portion of
Douglass motion as being based on newly discovered evidence.
However, because these records would have been cumulative of
McCartys testimony and records already in evidence, and because
Douglas would have used them only to impeach McCartys testimony
regarding McCartys injuries, he fails to meet the standard set forth
in Boryan v. United States, 884 F.2d 767, 771 (4th Cir. 1989), for the
grant of a new trial based on newly discovered evidence.
Accordingly, we affirm the district courts orders granting remittitur in the amount of $250,000 and denying Douglass Rule 59(a)
motion for a new trial. We dispense with oral argument because the
facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials
before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED